dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering And Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15508867 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 8, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an engineering services company, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, an engineer and data 
scientist, as an individual of extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria , as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States . 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then it must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the beneficiary is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
While he was a graduate student at the.__ ________________ _,, the Beneficiary 
co-wrote 15 journal articles and conference presentations. After the Beneficia received his doctorate in 
late 2016, the Petitioner hired him as a senior en ineer in its division, working 
with technology related t_.__ _________________ ___.. The Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiary's duties entail "developinr predictive analysis models to improve! I in 
buildings," "designing regression models_ 0 00 l designing complex software and 
hardware applications, and tracking and maintaining assets." 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that the Beneficiary received a major, internationally 
recognized award, the Petitioner must submit evidence to satisfy at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied 
four of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, numbered (iv) and (vi). On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that it also meets the other two claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied only two claimed 
criteria. We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
2 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "is internationally recognized for his round­
breaking developments in the field of risk analysis and probabilistic modeling ~f_or~-~---~ 
I I rThe Beneficiary] is internationally acclaimed for developing simulatio models that 
allow the designer to evaluate thd I impacts of~--------~" 
The Petitioner quotes at length from three previously submitted letters, and contends that these letters, 
and others in the record, are credible evidence of the Beneficiary's impact on the field, to which the 
Director did not give enough consideration and weight. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, 1 we 
consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and 
credibility) of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010); Matter o_f E­
M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). The very submission ofletters signed by third parties does 
not satisfy any evidentiary burden or otherwise create a presumption of eligibility. Rather, we must 
consider the content of the letters. 
Each letter includes one or more paragraphs of highly technical language describing the nature of the 
Beneficiary's work, either preceded or followed by general assessments that the contributions thus 
described are of major significance in the field. Presenting the information in this way, however, does 
not explain why or how the Beneficiary's contributions are of major significance. Explaining the 
significance of the Beneficiary's work is not simply a matter of describing that work. 
Also, in many instances the technical language in the letters is not simply the letter writer's summary of 
the Beneficiary's work. Rather, the letters include lengthy passages copied from the Beneficiary's 
articles, presented without attribution, and sli:htly modified in a manner that obscures their origin. For 
example, a letter signed by the chair of1 _ Is School of I I includes this 
passage: 
The significance of this research is that [the Beneficiary] and his co-authors defined 
and simulated the standard construction details and inferred the uncertainty range ofD 
!effects with the limited in situ data that is 
~av-ai-la_b_l_e ___ R_e_s_u_l-ts_o_f~1-_-----
0
-_~ls_i_m_u~lations ~.em ta srnwest caostrnctiao detail 
design will have a relatively large impact on the[ I 
properties of thd I 
The above passage is mostly identical to wording on page 2232 of a 2014 conference paper by the 
Beneficiary, which is in the record: 
We defined and simulated the standard construction details and inferred the uncertainty 
range o~ I effects with the limited in situ 
data that is available. The I I simulations lead to the following 
1 Under this standard. a petitioner must show that what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
3 
conclusions: (1) Construction detail design will have a relatively large impact on the 
I I properties of th~ I ... 
There are other shared passages as well, but the above example serves to demonstrate the point. 
Another letter, signed by an associate professor at~I --~I University, includes this passage: 
[The Beneficiary] modeled the mean profiles ;:::an:.:.:d::........:v-=a::..:ri=ab=-1::.·h::.·tyL....:o:..:f-==::,:;-~---~ 
(presence and actions) se aratel . He used al I distribution to 
generate mean profiles of while the variability will be represented 
by ~---.----.....---~series model, within a framework I I that 
synthesizes.___ __ _. ....,......_.........._..........,d from I I [The Beneficiary] also 
presented the variants of models with res ect to various outcomes of interest 
such a--,__ ________________ __.behavior via a sensitivity analysis. 
Simulation results in the Beneficiary's] work suggest that the approach is able to 
1
enerate I 
~--------' profiles, requiring minimum additional input from the 
modeler other than standard diversity profiles . 
. . . Another practical contribution of this work is the realization that accurate knowledge 
of the mean profiles is sufficient - that is models do not la a 
significant role in the prediction of L---------r---,_ _______ ____J 
I lwhere the interaction between the operation o systems and the spatial 
and temporal variabili!YI I is weak. When it comes tol lbehavior, 
I I should be taken into account, as static profiles are not able to 
produce adequate estimates o~~-----~probabilities close to theLJ peak. 
The above language is taken almost word-for-word from the abstract of a 2016 article by the Beneficiary, 
reproduced in the record: 
In this paper, we model the mean profiles and variabili of (presence 
and actions) separately. We will use a~-------~distribution to generate 
- while the variability will be represented by al~-~ 
series model, within a framework I J I that s nthesizes 
1-----~d-at_a_g ..... athered frortj I We then discuss variants o 
models with res ect to various outcomes of interest such a ~---------~ 
L_ _____ ,.....'-"-"'-'.......,~L.......L.......,.......,.""'"""','·tivity analysis. Results show that our approach is 
abll to geTrate~------~profiles, requiring minimum additional input from 
the modeler other than standard diversity profiles. . . . Such a findin . . . roves 
that accurate knowledge of the mean profiles is sufficientl-'-th....:.a;_;_t_is.:..e...i. _______ .....,.. 
models do not play a significant role in the prediction of L_ ______ ---1----1 
where the interaction between the operation o ~---' 
~s_y_s-te_m_s-an-d-th-e-sp-a-t1-.a-l_a_n_d~temporal variabili
7
I lis weak. When it comes to 
~----~I behaviorJ 1 ~ ...) should be taken into account, as static 
profiles are not able to produce adequate estimates otj !probabilities close 
to thd I peak. 
4 
Nearly verbatim passages from the Beneficiary's own work cannot serve as independent evaluations of 
his work, and have little weight as corroborative evidence of major significance without explanations of 
the significance of such work. 2 This is a significant issue because those letters are central to the 
Petitioner's contentions about the significance of the Beneficiary's contributions. 
The Petitioner also documents citation of the Beneficiary's published work, but the Petitioner has not 
submitted independent data to show how heavily the Beneficiary's work is cited relative to other 
published work in the same area. The record therefore lacks an objective basis for comparison to establish 
the significance of the citation figures. 
The Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary has made original scientific contributions, but has not 
established that those contributions are of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner asserts that at the Beneficiary "held a critical role as a Research Assistant 
in the~---------~ Lab." The director of that laboratory describes various projects in 
which the Beneficiary participated and courses that the Beneficiary taught, but does not explain how these 
roles were critical to the lab at the organizational level. Furthermore, the Petitioner submits background 
evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of I I as a whole, and of its School of 
[,--___ ,lbut this evidence is general in nature and does not establish that the I I 
l~--~l'[ai,has a distinguished reputation in its own right. Because reputation is a function of outside 
perception, statements by an official of the lab are not sufficiently independent evidence that the lab has 
a distinguished reputation. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not submitted objective evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary performed in a critical role at the institutional level for I I On appeal, the 
Petitioner does not directly address this conclusion. Instead, the Petitioner repeats earlier assertions that 
I ts l I Lab is an internationally recognized leader" in its field. The 
Petitioner cites no evidence to support this claim except to state that the lab received government research 
grants. The Petitioner does not establish that the awarding of such grants is a sign of distinction in the 
field, rather than the expected result of meritorious grant applications. 
The senior director of Engineering and Development at the Petitioner's I I describes the 
Beneficiary's role there, stating: "As a data scientist ... , [the Beneficiary] performs automation detection 
and diagnosis of1 ~ to drive common approaches tol Ito being more 
predictive through physical models and machine learning." The official cites the Beneficiary's co­
authorship of three patent applications, and states that the Beneficiary developed "a machine learning 
based approach" for data capture that "will potentially save the company three (3) full time employees 
... and will serve as a solid cornerstone to all future digitally delivered service projects." The Petitioner 
2 Other letters use similarly technical language to describe other articles by the Beneficiary, but those articles are not reproduced 
in the record for direct comparison with the letters describing them. As a result, the record does not show whether these letters, 
too, rely heavily on unatttibuted quotations from the Beneficiary's work. 
5 
does not submit an organizational chart or other information to establish the Beneficiary's position within 
the division or the company as a whole. 
With respect to distinguished reputation, the Petitioner submits printouts from the website of thel I I O I division, but that website consists of promotional material intended to persuade prospective 
clients, rather than objective evidence of the division's re utation. On appeal, as above, the Petitioner 
repeats its prior assertion that its "division o is a leadin rovider of automation 
technologies and services for.__ _______________________ ___. The 
Petitioner also quotes extensively from the company official's previously submitted letter, which is not 
independent evidence of the division's reputation. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league 
level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the recognition of the 
Beneficiary's work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrates a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
Beneficiary's activities as a judge of the work of others do not appear to extend beyond routine peer 
review, and the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's published work has had an impact 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. The Beneficiary has made valuable 
contributions atl land then at the petitioning company, but the Petitioner has not shown 
that these contributions have earned recognition that would place the Beneficiary in the small 
percentage at the very top of that field. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6